'The View' In Heated Debate Over Teaching Creationism

May 5, 2009 on ABC via http://www.Atheistmedia.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• abc
• the
• view
• creation
• evolution
• science
• education
• church
• state
• christian
• christianity
• atheist
• atheism
• debate

[richotim]

why teach both. if you want your kids to know the creationist theory you can teach them that superstition in your own time. Young earth creationism is acctualy quite a new thing. Even thomas Aqquinas wrote how genesis is purely symbolic. rely on reason not emotion.

[zeldaofarel]

Darwin belongs in the Science class. Creationism belongs in the Religious Studies class.

[djcesare]

how can you teach both to a bunch of kids when they contradict each other?

[LOL4Polio]

@MrEnlighteneddespot You can't teach creationism in a science classroom because there is no science within it to teach. All there is is a 2000 year old book written by people that didn't know where the sun went at night. Scientists change their minds, it's called adopting new information when it is discovered. Creationism, however, does not change in light of new information. Thats why it is not science, but rather faith based belief. I'm glad we don't still think earth is flat and 6000 yrs old.

[MrEnlighteneddespot]

@Sendamagicmoment No its not a proven fact. It is merely a theory and judging by the track record scientist have at changing their mind, I would take it with a pinch of salt. Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in the classroom on an equal scale.

[Sendamagicmoment]

@dogdayish Evolution has millions of pages of research supporting it from research done over the last 150 years and is a proven fact. It is also the basis of modern medicine as you should know being a premed student. The term scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the word "theory" that we use in everyday language. Evolution is a fact, meaning it occurs in nature and we have observed it. The "Theory of Evolution" explains the mechanisms behind how it actually works.

[greggmcc]

What is so hard to understand that creationism and christianity cannot be TAUGHT in public schools. Neither are based on fact, especially christianity. Evolution is based on evidence. Scientific theorys are based on fact, and experiments, Try doing a little research. ALL religions are myths. In a couple hundred yrs, religion will be looked back on and laughed at. If religion makes you feel good, thats great. But dont try and teach your myths and fairy tales with my tax dollars,do it in church

[rritter72]

What ever happened to respecting the view point of others? If you choose not to believe in creationism, that is fine and I respect not only your right do to so but your opinon. Why can't those of use who do believe in creationism be given the same respect? There is an elitist tone given that basically says if you don't agree with my beliefs then you are stupid. Sorry but evolution is not a proven fact and it also may be a part of creationism. Who is to say that God did not create evolution?

[resistnzisfutl]

Creationism should never be taught as science in science class. In fact, no religious or superstitious belief has a place in the classroom, aside from an academic historic lesson. There is nothing scientific about religious belief, nor is anything religious scientific.

Now, if they want to teach something like comparative religion or modern history, again from an academic perspective, and discuss it there, that's a different story. Just not in science class where science needs to be taught.

[zamriash]

@dogdayish you would represent yourself much better if you actually took a stand and refrained from using phrases like "i never said" "i never took a side" "all i said". These phrases really have no meaning if you know what you are talking about.

[zamriash]

@dogdayish So you say that evolution is indeed a tested theory and yet not a solid fact? can you please explain in your own words what you consider to be the distinction between a tested theory and fact? Do you know that einsteins "theory" of general relativity completely superseded Newton's "theory" of universal gravitation? Yet newtons "theory" is enough to put a man on the moon. The scientific use of the word "theory" is different from the meaning of the word in common parlance.

[dogdayish]

@zamriash Okay, excuse me. Should I instead say "Evolutionary Biology"? I never said that it wasn't a tested theory. All that I said, was that it's not not a solid fact, and if that guy over there said that only factual information should be taught in school, then many evolution studies and teachings should not be taught. I NEVER took a side to anything, so for you to tell me to "keep an open mind" is not true. I also NEVER said that it shouldn't be taught in school.